Everyone Cares About the Royal Wedding

Polls initially indicated that most Americans were underwhelmed by the royal nuptials, but interest has spiked as the wedding day nears. U.S. media outlets are publishing twice the amount of coverage as the British media, according to a new Nielsen study.

So people don't care about it, but the media care a lot–which is evidence of, well, something.

And more on that:

Jane Seymour, the actress-turned-correspondent for ET, says she hasn't met anyone in London who's apathetic about the wedding.

"This is completely insane," says the British-born Seymour. "I think there's nothing else happening in the world because all the media are here. I find it quite fun."

If all the media are in one place, there must be nothing else happening in the world–that pretty much says it all.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

As an anti-royalist liberal, I say down with all monarchies even titular and limited ones. The glitter in the eyes of the plebeians has been put there by the incessant reporting by the droning news media who have such little real news that they swoon at anything that smacks of anything beyond a shade of trite. It is pathetic. What is really the fascination with royalty? Is it to be reminded that one is a serf and always was a serf and always will be a serf? It is a travesty that this wedding will have spent millions that could have gone to some of the charities of the destitute in the world. And what about the billions being spent by corporations on advertising their products that should go toward lowering their prices for a world that is in devastating financial trouble, millions of minutes of time-fillers for TV stations who have only stale and hackneyed programming anyway. Just think about all the time that translates into dollars spent on the truly nugatory inanities that are associated with this media-made event. The British Parliament is free to abolish the monarchy. Polled Australians this week said they would vote to abolish the British monarchy. Canadians are mostly indifferent! What does that say? How useless a monarchy is? Sweden is courting the idea of abolishing their monarchy with a new Social Democratic leader speaking out on the subject. Nepal did abolish their monarchy. Brit journalist, Rob Lyons, spoke on Spiked in June 10, 2010, "The monarchy should be abolished not because it costs a lot, but because it is a spent, Middle-Ages, anti-democratic institution. " Well, maybe. They do have a lot of money, the Queen is reported to have assest in excess of English Â£17 billion. So my anti-royalism is not a cranky idea attributable only to me!

I didn't read the article, but the headline actually belies your take. Saying "Americans, Here and There, Get Swept Up by the Royal Wedding" kind of implies that in occasional places, here and there, you can find Americans swept up etc., which is undoubtedly true. If they had omitted the "here and there" the implication would be that all or most Americans were swept up, but the qualifier changes that, to my eye.

A commenter from the Mail, of all places (linked in last link): "Her parents can't be overly happy. She has been largely unemployed since she left school and is now marrying someone who has been on welfare most of his life. With the new government's promise to cut housing benefit and force those who repeatedly turn down work into manual labour I do worry for them."

The American media only gave the royal wedding so much attention simply because it was a relatively slow news week. After all, the nuclear disaster in Japan is, let's be honest, old news now and boring. I mean, it's not like the South got clobbered by the worst tornadoes in history or anything!!! (Did I spell "tornadoes" right?)

Prince William is a search and rescue helicopter pilot and Kate is the daughter of an extremely wealthy commoner family. Does Paris Hilton work? Or any other of the wealthy bunch. Kate is a lovely young woman and found herself someone she can love. Hopefully for longer than some of the other royals. I was interested to see the videos of the wedding and crowds. As for Alabama, and the midwest – it's not called Tornado Alley for nothing. California has wildfires, mudslides, earthquakes. The east has blizzards, storms, and lately blazing hot summers. That's life! I enjoyed a respite from our problems and Trump's nonsense and watched some of the wedding! Get a life. Did we really need to see the long form of President Obama's birth certificate. I'm actually quite fed up with this US of A and the corporate takeover of our country. Since I'm 74 I won't have to be around to see what will happen in the next 30 years if these creeps have their way. Good luck to all.

That's a nice ramble there Judith. Dreadful environmental disasters with massive casualties? "That's life!" "Get a life!" What a repulsive viewpoint for a professed elder. So did the mad media's coverage of the wedding stop the evil, or multiply it? And what iota of solace can be drawn from this horrendously wasteful and decadent outlay of tens of millions of pounds in the middle of a global recession/depression? Can't you even remember what sordid affairs were ushered in by the last "Royal Wedding" of Di(e) and Charles?

We can discuss whether monarchies have a right to exist, but nevertheless I have a certain respect for Britain's. All the men of the British royal family serve in the military, and put themselves in harm's way if the occasion arises. Prince Andrew served in the Falklands war; Prince Harry did a tour in Afghanistan; Prince Charles did a hitch in the navy. During WWII, the present Queen and her sister Margaret were both involved in civil-defense work. The Queen (Princess as she was then), I believe, drove an ambulance during the Blitz. Their parents didn't cower in a bunker in some undisclosed location during that time, either; they visited bombed neighborhoods and talked to the people who were dealing with the destruction. When Buckingham Palace took a hit, the present Queen's mother said, "Now I can look the East End in the face." Contrast that to our so-called "leadership," who love to make war as long as neither they nor their kids have to fight it. These same people don't particularly care if the "little people" are devastated by natural or man-made disasters, as long as it's not their house that gets covered in oil or blown away by tornado winds. They care nothing for the poor or sick or those down on their luck, as long as their money is still coming in. The British royalty, on the other hand, do a good deal of charity work; I remember Princess Diana making considerable effort to get land mines abolished, for instance. Whatever your opinion of royalty in general, the British royal family does have a notion of public duty. Our so-called "leaders" can't see anything except power and privilege.

I was a bit nauseated to see my coworkers sincerely watching on Friday. I'm sorry to say that my cohorts usually have very little if any interest of any events outside of New Mexico unless someone they love is being dispatched to a combat area. So I don't get their sudden interest in the British monarchy when a majority here can not name their US congressman. The best rational that I heard to understand my fellow Americans is that "they are royalty and we want to see the dress." I thought that the correct response is "they are royalty SO OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" Rhetorically speaking of couse. With all of the problems in US politics at least we don't have a royal family in need of the former sentiment.

Didn't we have a revolution a few hundred years ago against this British classism? Anyway, we have our own version of monarchy right here in the good 'ol U.S.A. The governors of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida to name a few. Americans have our own self-appointed kings who have been doing their best to destroy our constitutional, limited representative, democratic republic. Ex: Benton Harbor, MI.

So which of the constant media floods have you found the most annoying by now? The obnoxious babbling of the sneering billionaire or the burbling and gushing with delight of the TV news reporters about the rather extravagant Royal Wedding. Brits need not reply – they love their medieval pageantry even as about 1/4 of their government workers are about to be sacked for budget reasons. And those troopers in silly outfits have to stand for hours without moving a muscle beyond blinking their eyes now and then. See what we too could have had if those Boston folks had not dumped the King's tea (the real and more rational party) and Paul Revere not roused all the rabble in the middle of the night.

So which of the constant media floods have you found the most annoying by now? The obnoxious babbling of the sneering billionaire or the burbling and gushing with delight of the TV news reporters about the rather extravagant Royal Wedding. Brits need not reply – they love their medieval pageantry even as about 1/4 of their government workers are about to be sacked for budget reasons. And those troopers in silly outfits have to stand for hours without moving a muscle beyond blinking their eyes now and then. See what we too could have had if those Boston folks had not dumped the King's tea (the real and more rational party) and Paul Revere not roused all the rabble in the middle of the night.

As reported by John Oliver on the Daily Show, it has -actually- been reported that 80% of the people in Great Britain don't care at all about the royal wedding, and many are disgusted by the cost of the wedding and the show of wealth during a time of imposed austerity.

It was reported prior to the wedding that only 6% of Americans were interested in it. I think that Jerry Seinfeld had it right when he said it was a sham and pretense. These people are subsidized by the British government, and used as a distraction to cover up what's really going on behind the scenes. Entertainment for the masses. Just look at the hats that these women wear and you will see that they are the victims of mind-control. Who would voluntarily wear such monstrosities?

It was great TV. Lovely pageantry.He seems a good man,and she a fine lady. Was it extravagant?Hell yes. Was it worth the expense.Hell yes. The Brits made oodles on the spectacle.And will continue to. The British monarchy is a bit like an old castle people come to visit.They are a living breathing touch to history and a spur to tourism. They exist for that reason.They have no power to take away peoples rights .Send people to war etc.They draw anger because they are the pampered canaries kept in a golden gilded cage.Looks more like a jail to me.Born to work and be kept…by the British Government FOR the british government.I would not want to be born in that family .Lets not forget that Harry and William have proven themselves to be men willing to risk all for their country.They are not fops who demand their bath waters to be set out for them.
A lot of you sound like world class buzz kills.Shrill angry party poopers.Should we all put off everything happy in our lives until all the wrongs of the world have been set right?Christ crack a smile will you?